Does THIS Seem at all Sexist to Anyone?

[The Doctor.]

On another site that I frequent I was witness to an exchange.

One poster, long since admittedly 'female', upon finding out that another poster was a man stated the following:

"All those wonderful pictures (nature scenes) you have posted, I thought you were a woman all this time."


I told the poster she was being sexist in making a gender determination based only on the sort of content that someone posts.

That poster refused to even acknowledge my reverse analogies, such as, after dining at Sylvia's in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly stating surprise that black people weren't swearing every other word was very racist of him. He just laughed it off. The other poster took no offense, he was just gracious for what he chose to perceive as a compliment... much to his credit.

So was I wrong? Is it at all sexist to assume someone is of a particular gender just because their posts are of a certain character or content?

[Scootaloo]

1. Definite gender bias

Sort of like the "Girls play with pink toys!" thing.

[seabeyond]

2. because you kept telling me who and what i was instead of asking. because the reason i

thought it a woman instead of a man had nothing to do with months later, but the first post he made. i though he talked about a "husband". it was 3, 4, 5 months ago. since all i had done was seen the pictures and no other comment from him. so i thought all the while it was a woman (wife). which he and i talked about in that very subthread. after you accused me of a couple other things, until i proved you wrong on those issues that he was not taking the pictures himself. and is a regular in the lounge putting up these pictures.

regardless of the number of times i asked you, to just ask me.... instead of telling me who i am, you refused. i was receiving psychoanalysis thru out that whole subthread from you.

but i knew that other Op of yours was exactly about this. no surprise there. you came thru.

[seabeyond]

4. and if you were being honest here, you would include the subthread, that would show how foolish

your posts were, addressing me.

[seabeyond]

7. one more point. tell us honestly. that other scenario you let run? was made up. to create

this thread. right?

[The Doctor.]

24. First things first: You have my apologies.

But please understand, this is NOT about you.

I'm running a simple social study, and I took elements from my own experience to put it together. Your comment, without context here, was in the ideal format to both depict equivalence and allow for interchange.

Honestly? Really? YES, I've had many exchanges where men have said something similar, if not identical, to the quote from the other thread.

If I find one of them, I'll PM you the link. K?

Meanwhile, please don't think this is about you. If you would be so gracious, you could answer the questions in both threads.

I'd appreciate that. I hope you would too.

[The Doctor.]

5. What are you talking about?

Why does this have to be about you?

I had a funny feeling you might show up, especially after your buddy tried to throw the curve so laughably in the other one.

News: This isn't about YOU. I'm curious about something else, and I'm betting I'm right. I used an example I thought would be properly interchangeable. Stop working so hard at taking things personally. It's not healthy.


Relax and just answer the question on its face value. This has nothing to do with you.

[seabeyond]

9. here we go again. nt

[Quantess]

14. Are you the person "The Doctor" described in the OP?

[seabeyond]

17. yes. though he interprets to fit his agenda. and refuses to put the subthread in

where the poster in question that i responded to and i were having a chat. dr jumped in and kept it going. on and on and on....

[The Doctor.]

25. Oh, and you might be glad to know...

I kept screen shots of that entire exchange as I had a feeling someone might furiously be wearing out the 'alert' GUI.

Not that it was you, but yes, that entire sub-thread was deleted.

So think over your recollection. You might want to give this old researcher the BotD.

[Cherchez la Femme]

125. The first one I thought

'what's this guy's agenda?' as it had that 'Hey look at me! I'm not sexist!' quality to it.

Looks like, with this one, he may have overplayed his hand...


Reading downthread: zOMG!

Run. Just run,
then ignore.

Life's too short for such games. EFG, definitely.

[seabeyond]

126. and i am hoping we are done with it. it is really getting old.

i think you have it pegged.

[The Doctor.]

22. Not directly, I've had that exchange with several people.

The quote most closely resembles hers, but to be fair, there was more to say about it.

I've used the Bill O'Reilly point on sexists (men and women), racists, homophobes, etc. when it was apparent that they could not see that what they said came from a very definite bias.

Seabeyond has chosen to take exception, and she has my apologies that the quote I chose so closely resembles hers. I chose it because of its interchangeability.

The truth is, there was nothing I could have used for this that would not have offended someone.

[Ikonoklast]

3. Well, it kinda plays into stereotyping, certainly.

Outright sexism?

Dunno about that.

[fishwax]

6. as quoted, I don't think it suggests the pictures were the cause of the gender determination n/t

[Cerridwen]

8. NOW it makes sense.

Thank you for confirming what I had thought.

[The Doctor.]

10. Which is what, precisely?

What did you 'think' and what does it pertain to?

[Rex]

11. I am not sure how one determines the sex of others based

on rustic pictures, but I will give it a shot - maybe the female poster identified her own values in the pictures contents and so assumed the other poster too must be a female. I won't fault someone for making a false assumption, quite a bit different then making sexist remarks.

[southernyankeebelle]

12. Sometimes we can get carried away with our comments. Maybe she meant nothing by it. She just made

the comment. Nothing more or nothing less. But even if she made the comment maybe that was her OWN observation. The poster could have corrected her. I know sometimes I don't know if the poster is a male or a female. The other day a serious article was written about some serious abuse that was going on growing up. I assumed it was a young woman. It turned out not to be. I felt bad and I expressed shock of what he went through and hoped he was better. This isn't the first time I got a poster's gender wrong. Of course she is seeing through a woman's eye.

[rbnyc]

13. I think that's more about preconceptions...

...and possibly prejudice than sexism.

When I was in college, I remember learning that racism and sexism equal prejudice plus power. This did resonate with me. If someone makes an assumption about someone based on race or gender, I don’t think that necessarily translates to one of the bug “isms.” Such an assumption could be based on prejudice, bias, ignorance or even just plain odds – and such an assumption may be positive, negative or neutral. But when a person or a group of people are in a position to use race or gender to limit opportunity, endanger or malign a person, I think that’s sexism or racism.

[orpupilofnature57]

15. " A certain character or content " is your assumption of what

the two genders think ,it's only sexist if it effects how You think.

[Starry Messenger]

16. No, it sounds made up to me.

Like the other story.

[justiceischeap]

20. I do think there is an agenda here. nt

[The Doctor.]

28. Yes, it's called 'curiosity'.

I'd really like to know what you think.

Please, if you'll indulge the question, I'd appreciate it.

[The Doctor.]

26. Not made up, but that is irrelevant.

Your participation has been valuable.

Thank you.

[Starry Messenger]

29. Some of us find these vendettas tiresome.

You're welcome.

[The Doctor.]

33. So when it was a man saying something, it was an honest question,

But now that it's a woman, I'm on some sort of 'vendetta'?

I know seabeyond (who I like just fine, btw) thinks this is about her, but I have very explicitly stated it is not. If you would perhaps read through the thread, you'll see that I have made that quite clear... even to the point of apologizing to her for the similarities with a conversation we had months ago.

Were I on a 'vendetta', I would not have apologized.

This was inspired by an asshole on another site who made a very similar comment. I sought DU as the venue to answer a few questions for me due to the high traffic and general intelligence of the community. I keep my online personas very compartmentalized, otherwise I would offer you a link to that recent discussion.

As you can see, it was not I who brought up the exchange with SB.

Again, your participation has been valuable.

[seabeyond]

34. you left out context and reality in your little scenario cause you were curious. does it matter if

a person that makes that remark thought at the beginning the poster made a reference to gender? so that is what the poster was wondering about. does that matter AT ALL in the equation?

[The Doctor.]

92. There is no 'context' beyond the contents of the OP.

Hence the reason it has nothing to do with you.

I'm employing logic and reason here. I'm not going to assume that you aren't able to follow. In fact, I'd like very much to think you understand.

[Starry Messenger]

37. fishwax posted the December thread that prompted you to create this confection.

Your reply from Weds. is there for all to see. She apologized in her post to ashling for assuming that he was female and that she had learned something. You kicked up the month-old thread with a reply to her post, which you are truncating for your own purposes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2443389#2446205

The Doctor. Wed Jan-11-12 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #173
294. No, that's not 'sexist' at all.

Therefore, your explanation rings hollow to the casual observer. For future credibility, you might wish to not leave a remark in old threads that you are *not* oh, no, referencing.

[The Doctor.]

70. I sought the quote, I found the subthread deleted, and I chided her.

That's not relevant to this thread except for what she deliberately brought to it.

The clue that I wasn't involving her might have been the fact that I didn't mention her or the other thread. I noticed you also ignore the fact that she also thought the other thread, with the 'sexist male', was about her as well.

It would be impossible to post anything on this subject without her believing it was about her.

I'll have to post again in a few months to find out.

[Warpy]

18. I rarely know the gender of a poster unless I'm told

and try to make those assumptions rarely. In other formats where font colors can be chosen, writing solely in pink with smilies after every sentence can indicate either an immature female or a middle aged man trolling for immature females.

This is mildly offensive, in the "I didn't know males had souls" vein. Posting it was certainly tactless. However, as with all mildly offensive and tactless posts, it says volumes about the poster and nothing about the target.

It doesn't rise to the level of sexism, though, since it only states the silly prejudice of the poster and has no effect on the target beyond an exasperated sigh. Real sexism hurts the target by limiting social and economic progress.

[seabeyond]

23. especially when you have no information because the Op doesnt put a link

showing the subthread, from du2.

i though the poster introduced himself in lounge months prior, as a woman.

but wtf....

lets judge.

it is another post, going after me, without facts.

[fishwax]

30. ah ha -- it was this one, I assume ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2443389&mesg_id=2449933

Did a quick search when you said it was a thread there and found this.

FWIW, I did not interpret the sentence as you saying you thought he was female *because* he posted the pictures, but rather just combining the two thoughts without a causal link.

[seabeyond]

35. exactly. thank you fishwax for providing a link. nt

[seabeyond]

38. i see much of it was deleted. it was going back and forth of him telling me who i am

and me saying, just ask, why i thought that.

he couldnt do it. every post was him telling me who i am.

that doesnt work for me. i believe a person should ask, not make it up themselves.

[Rex]

43. WTF

So THIS thread was started over a post you made IN WHICH you say you were wrong and laughed about it? TELL me I am wrong...this is going to piss me off here in a minute. I thought you were joking about this thread being about you.

I see this OP as a failure in trying to prove a point that didn't exist in the first place and in VERY BAD TASTE.

Doctor, what is your intent with this thread? Maybe you should elaborate since the ORIGINAL post is about the poster admitting they were wrong and laughing it off...HOW is that sexist? You have no idea WHY she thought what she did. Unless you have ESP.

If I was an admin, I would lock this thread as being bullshit from the getgo. When did GD become 5th grade?

I missed that memo.

[seabeyond]

46. and here i sit. but really, it isnt about me. and i am merely being overwrought. i should take

time off du. until the next poster does another of these threads and i am not around to address it.

[The Doctor.]

51. I will.

After the contamination of this one, I'll have to do another in a few months to get accurate results.

I know that I can't ask you to refrain from thinking this was about you, but in case you didn't notice, the only one associating it with you are you and those you've convinced it was about you.

There really wasn't much I could have done considering that even when I posted a quote that was similar to the one I used here, you also assumed it was about you.

I know this might come as a shock, but as I've said: I've come across many nearly identical quotes over the years and there is obviously not a single one I could have used that you would not have taken exception to.

By your participation, there are certain results that will be contaminated. But I'm really enthused that you've helped shed light on other social behaviors in the process.

Thanks much for your participation.

[Rex]

57. Yes you must be distressed, should I bring over the fainting couch?

[seabeyond]

61. lol. eating my wings hubby cooked.

too busy doing laundry to mess with a fainting couch right now. maybe a tad later.

[Rex]

67. Okay let me know...

it has wheels.

[The Doctor.]

47. Read the whole thread.

There was no way to ask this question without someone taking exception. She thought the other thread was about her as well. Neither of them are.

Nonetheless (and believe it or not), your input was quite valuable. I do not recall if you had an opinion in the other thread.

I may consider posting the findings, but excising the contamination won't be easy.

Thank you for your participation.

[Rex]

54. Ah but you withheld vital information, therefore

your 'experiment' is not valid. The contamination was by your own hand in trying to hide key facts. And now everyone knows that.

Thank you for your participation.

[The Doctor.]

65. Tell me of any social 'experiment' where 'vital information' is not withheld?

All you've told me by this is that you have no clue how experiments are properly run.

In this case, all the information is in the op. The contaminating information was brought in by another poster.

Now you cannot participate, you can only further contaminate.

[Rex]

69. Wrong, you have no idea how to hold a real experiment

got called out on your bullshit and now say I cannot play anymore.

What a load of horseshit.

[The Doctor.]

73. Wow, you really have no clue how experiments are run, do you? This question will prove it:

Cite ONE sociological or psychological experiment where 'vital information' was not in some way withheld from the subjects/participants.

One.

In this case, you have been given information that is extraneous and not pertinent to the point of the study. In social experimentation, any such information is considered 'contamination'. You would know that if you had any kind of research background. That you cannot address the question of the OP without considering the extraneous information you have been fed only proves that. Either way, this particular study is valid only without contamination. Had someone run around the other thread claiming it was 'about him' and the 'context' included 'x,y, and z', the participants would have answered based on his information and not the question itself.

Right now, you're only imperative is to be 'right'. I've been at this a while and I know it when I see it.

If you'd like to be 'right', then give me just one example of the above where a social experiment was run with full disclosure to the participants/subjects.

But you won't. You'll evade, dodge, change the subject, whatever. I've seen it countless times and you're going to do it too. I'll at least give you three tries though.

[Rex]

75. That is nice, but you withheld information 'we' needed to know.

Hence your entire project is moot since your own hidden bias is now exposed.

You really should pick another screenname besides 'The Doctor'. It should be reserved for a real doctor.

Jus sayin...

[The Doctor.]

85. That's strike one.

So what you're saying is that you 'needed to know' that there was an exchange on the internet that was irrelevant to this OP so that you could base your answers on that exchange rather than on the question in the OP?

Fail. Try again.

[Rex]

114. LOL!

Wow...I see you have no idea how to perform an experiment. Why did you lie to us? Afraid your results would not comeout the way you wanted them to?

I see it is pointless to try and have a conversation with you since you lie and won't own up to your failure as a researcher!

Try counting mice, that is probably more your speed...but you would just probably lie about the numbers anyway.

Seriously, change our name that is embaressing to see on someone that posts lies and biased information.

Thanks you for trying. EOM.

[The Doctor.]

140. Strike two.

And calling me a liar is pretty desperate considering that you cannot point to my having lied.

[The Doctor.]

44. I have the screen shots.

You may want to 're-examine' your claims here.

Meanwhile, thanks much for hijacking my study and making it about you. I suppose we're equally at fault because you provided a perfect quote and I couldn't think of a way to post it without you thinking it was about you.

Seriously, you thought the OTHER thread was about you too.

I'm glad I use different names on the other sites I've had similar interactions. Otherwise we'd have a dozen women and men claiming this was about them.

[seabeyond]

48. i remember you dogmatic insistence that you KNEW why i posted the remark, regardless of asking

me why i thought the poster was a woman.

and i know that you have told me i need medical help and other stuff. continually ignoring what i say.

and i know you play games.

so yes, i thought the other post was about this issue. and no, i said nothing in that post because you had not gone too far.

and then you posted this thread. that was too far. in misrepresentation.

[The Doctor.]

53. You think you know more than you do.

That's why I tend to keep screen shots when in a discussion with those I suspect might try to 're-characterize' my posts.

For instance you claim that I 'didn't ask you' to explain yourself:

"regardless of the number of times i asked you, to just ask me.... instead of telling me who i am, you refused."

Except for my exact words:

"If you have some other explanation, then I'd love to hear it"


Do you know why it is that you 'mis-remember' these exchanges? I have an idea, but I wouldn't mind listening to what you have to say first.

You've pretty much torpedoed this study. I suppose I'll have to recruit someone, some other time, to put it up. I'm sure you'll be 'on guard' for anything that might be about you though.

[seabeyond]

55. you didnt put all of that post in that quote. you would ask.... then you would answer

for me

that kind of "asking" does not count.

put the whole of that post up

[The Doctor.]

76. Oh, so now I DID ask, but that "Doesn't count".

Sorry, I don't operate by kindergarden playground rules.

[seabeyond]

78. you ask, you answer in the same post. you do not need me to participate in conversation

if you ask, then answer FOR me.

why dont you put the whole of that post up?

[The Doctor.]

141. I love watching people make all kinds of excuses for avoiding questions, challenges,

or invitations.

I asked you for an explanation. Your only reason for not providing one is that you didn't have one. Everything else is just an excuse.

When someone refuses to answer a question because they 'don't like my tone', or I 'already speculated' on the answer, I know that they're full of crap. Why would you not correct me if my presumption was wrong?

Because you couldn't.

then why did you claim I didn't ASK you even though you obviously couldn't remember the details of the exchange?

Yes, I know why. Because belief is comprised of 'desire' and 'reality'. Those whose beliefs, like yours, are comprised more of emotion-based desire (for me to be an unrelenting bad guy without the decency to ask for an explanation) will remember what they want to remember.

Which is exactly what you did when you made the claim that I gave you no opportunity to explain yourself.

I'll PM you the link to the screenshot so you can see for yourself.

[The Doctor.]

40. This isn't about seabeyond.

As I've stated many times.

Even had I tried to use a differently-worded quote with the same character and content, she would still have barged in, claimed it was 'about her', but then accused me of 'dishonesty' for changing the quote.

The quote was perfect for its interchangeability. So I used it. You might also notice that I deliberately did not link to any of the various similar exchanges I've had with her or anyone else. This was for various reasons, but I'm certain that even that will be considered 'dishonest' even though it was never my intention to involve anyone directly.

If you can answer the OP without the prejudice of believing I'm talking about SB, I'd appreciate it, but it appears as though this study has been contaminated.

[fishwax]

58. and yet it's a direct quote from her

Sorry, but that undermines the "it isn't about her at all" argument. I doubt you're right that even if you hadn't quoted her directly "she would still have barged in, claimed it was 'about her', but then accused (you) of 'dishonesty' for changing the quote."

"If you can answer the OP without the prejudice of believing I'm talking about SB, I'd appreciate it, but it appears as though this study has been contaminated."

I already did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=172198 -- "as quoted, I don't think it suggests the pictures were the cause of the gender determination n/t"

As to interchangeability, I don't see the quote from this OP and the quote from your other OP as interchangeable.

For one thing, the "logical" comment appears to draw specifically from a fairly well-known (and sexist) stereotype that men are better with logical thinking than women are. There's no stereotype (that I'm aware of) about women liking nature or posting nature pictures. Given that, and not knowing any other context, I found myself pretty willing to accept your interpretation of the "logical" post.

For another, posting great nature pictures is something a poster on a message board might get a reputation/become identifiable for. When I read your OP I didn't know it was about ashling and seabeyond, but I actually thought of ashling because he's the poster who posts all the great nature pictures. (I don't think on most boards making logical arguments would be a uniquely identifiable trait.) Given that, a non-causal interpretation of the comment in this OP popped first to mind.

[The Doctor.]

64. Of course you don't.

The die has been cast.

If you didn't notice, she also believed that the quote from the other post was about her.

At this point, there is no way I could have dressed up the quote without her accusing me of the same and then adding that I was 'being dishonest' for trying to disguise it.

You're not gong to get past your confirmation bias on this one. I also call it 'self-propagating perspective'.

I'll have to try again in several months and hope that the attempt will not also be contaminated.

Thank you for your participation.

[fishwax]

68. that is what I thought before knowing the quote was from seabeyond

You might have missed it because the link didn't appear in my previous post (which I've since edited), but my initial reaction to the OP was "as quoted, I don't think it suggests the pictures were the cause of the gender determination n/t": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=172198 ... that was before I realized the scenario from the OP was quoting seabeyond.

"You're not gong to get past your confirmation bias on this one. I also call it 'self-propagating perspective'. "

Of course, you're welcome to believe that any perspective which doesn't adhere to your own is a function of bias, but there's no confirmation bias here. As I explained, there is a difference between the two quotes from the two different OPs.

[Rex]

77. The Doctor got caught messing up his/her own 'experiment' to have fixed results.

How ironically scrumptious.

[The Doctor.]

82. How so?

To get accurate results, why would I include information that was irrelevant to the question?

[Ship of Fools]

134. Thank you for putting it so succinctly! I ditto this ...

I ditto this response, Doctor. I ditto it not as a complete dittohead but because I'm not as gifted a wordsmith
as most around seem to be (although I'm working on it, and hope does spring eternal...)

[justiceischeap]

19. You know the old saying about "assume"

You make an ass out of u and me.

I think on the Internet, assuming anyone's gender is plain silly (and I'm not criticizing anyone--it's human nature to make assumptions) but we've all heard the jokes and stories about people not turning out to be who they appear to be online. Why tell the complete truth about yourself if you don't want to? No one will know if you are a guy or a gal, even if I tell you I'm a woman, there's no way to know that for certain unless you know me in real life (BTW, I AM a woman).

I don't know whether it's sexist in making assumptions about someone's gender based on their posts character or content. I think it's easier to make the leap to sexism in the actual words of a statement. If someone posted photos of pretty, frilly dresses in a thread and talked about how much they liked the design of said dresses, I would assume they were female but the person could very well be a man who enjoys good fashion. Is that sexist? I don't know if nature photos fall into the same category but there are some things we do associate with males and females and then I think stereotypes play a bigger role than sexism.

[cthulu2016]

21. Not really sexist.

It is not sexist to have an impression unless the impression is based on a distinctly negative stereotype.

It is odd to announce the fact when you guess wrong. But we are always going to form impressions about anyone we interact with.

There is no way to have entirely neutral interactions. If a personality is not appranent we will fill one in.

That is not nessecarily a bad thing. If we were capable of pure-reason interactions with other humans we might be a bunch of sociopaths, or otherwise lacking in empathy.

When the APOLLO theater booked Buddy Holly the bookers assumed he was black from the sound of his music. That was an error, but not racist. To the bookers it was a compliment. And it was not an analysis of the musical potential of white people in a laboratory, it was informed by culture. Buddy Holly's music sounded more like one thing or another to the listener.

That's normal and not obviously detrimental.

Crossing the line is where the assumptions underlying the guess are themselves sexist or racist.

Mnay people have said that if women ran the world there would be fewer wars. That assumes something about the average traits of women, but is not nessecarily wrong or negative. When someone says "There was a brawl in this bar last night" we picture men. If we find out it was women braawling then we accept that, but why feel guilty about a reasonable impression?

There are some real group traits in aggregate--on average. We all acknowledge them while trying to be wise enough to not see a trend as a definition.

If someone guessed that Georgia O'Keefe was female after looking at her paintings I woud not assume anything bad was being said.

If someone said, "I guessed these were by a woman because they suck" that would be sexist.

That's my sense of these questions.

[Zalatix]

27. It's a stereotype.

In another thread someone mentioned that they read "you're so logical, I didn't know you were a woman" (or something like that).

These comments are based on gender stereotypes and are stupid. These should all be open-shut cases.

[HopeHoops]

31. I think I posted damn near the same thing to ashling.

I'm assuming that's who the "another poster" was. I thought MiddleFingerMom was a woman until I found out otherwise, but the name is a legitimate reason for confusion. People thought I was a woman for a long time, and my name doesn't even give a hint.

Sensitive guys (admittedly, I'm sort of crude sometimes) are likely to be considered female for the same reason we have the term "chick flick". Is that significantly different from "guy flicks" (which usually involve sports, lots of explosions, or both)? I LIKE "chick flicks". So does my wife, but we just watched a Chuck Norris film ("Logan's War&quot last night and she liked that too, perhaps because of the merlot, seeded dark rye bread and fine cheese, but still.

[The Doctor.]

36. We all do it.

Guilty here too.

But this was posted to find out something else. I just wish I could have avoided the contamination of this thread. Luckily, distinctions can be made and measured to extract the valuable content.

Fine choice with the Merlot, btw. What cheese?

[HopeHoops]

50. Shit - that reminded me of a line from "Toys" with Robin Williams.

I won't explain- watch the movie.

Cheese? Gorgonzola, havarti, red wine infused cheddar, and coltswort. We've got dill havarti in the fridge but didn't use it last night (and we both ate too much).

Merlot and cheese were made for each other.

[Texas Lawyer]

32. THIS is sexist: "Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will,…to have a woman

From a Santorum staffer attacking Bachmann in Iowa: "Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will,…to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/15/jamie-johnson-rick-santorum-sexist-email-bachmann_n_1207321.html

[Spazito]

39. Gender stereotyping is sexist....

one needs context to determine whether it is deliberate or merely making an assumption based on previous posts (if we are talking about DU), DU user names, etc.

In the two examples you have used, one in this thread, one in your other, both are sexist in terms of stereotyping but, without context, I would not alert on either one as a post that needed to be hidden.

[ZombieHorde]

41. The assumption that men are not interested in nature photography is absurd, but not really hurtful.

It is definitely sexist, but fairly minor.

[seabeyond]

42. and if the poster had thought months prior the person had identified their gender

as female, regardless of being wrong?

[ZombieHorde]

45. That additional information would suggest a misunderstanding. nt

[seabeyond]

49. yes. nt

[The Doctor.]

59. Right, but this isn't about you.

No guy ran around the other thread claiming it was about him and adding information.

What a tear you do go on when you think everything's about you. Had you PM'd and asked me, or even asked in your first post, I would have explained what I've repeated several times here.

Funny thing that. You accuse me of 'making assumptions' and 'jumping to conclusions' without asking first.... yet ask I did.

Then you can't be bothered to exhibit the behavior you berate others for not exercising.

Really... you should spend some time thinking about that.

[Cleita]

52. It is, but give her some slack for cultural conditioning.

She probably won't make that same mistake twice. If she does, then she deserves any criticism she gets.

[MrScorpio]

56. People make faulty assumptions all the time

Whatever intent that the person had behind that statement would determine whether any kind of sexism was impled, eiither in an effort to praise or diminish you.

Perhaps to that person, being peceived as a woman was considered complimentary. How did you take it?

If you weren't offended, I'd take the statement with a grain of salt.

[The Doctor.]

62. In the threads where I have been perceived as a woman, I never took offense.

There was one board where a very bright poster and I had a discussion about social mores. When I did say that I was male, the other poster confessed to thinking I was a woman because, "Your patience and insight reveal empathy I normally associate with women. I hope you aren't offended."

I said that I actually took it as a compliment. I loved her screen name, 'Subtletease'

Given that SB was already convinced the other thread was about her, there really wasn't a way I could have crafted the quote to avoid her presumption. I would have liked to have a cleaner study, but now that people are convinced it was 'about her', I suppose I'll have to dress it up and try again in the future.

Meanwhile, look back and forth between the two threads (doing your best to dismiss the tainted parts of this one), and think about the contrasts... even in your own posts. Interestingly, the contamination itself is telling as well.

Again, thanks for participating. You're always appreciated.

[Quantess]

60. Since you asked my opinion, I'll say yes

this example is sexist, and your other example from yesterday was also sexist, because someone is mentally assigning a gender to someone on the internet based on what they think of as male or female character / personality.

It's about a hundred times more insulting, though, to say "I thought you were a man because you are so logical" than it is to say "I thought you were a woman because you post photos of nature".

We all have been conditioned to believe that women's interests and personalities are confined to home life, makeup & pantyhose, social interactions, oohing & aahing at kitties & puppies, raising babies, tampons, and nagging men.

But yet when it comes to independent thought or independent action of any kind, scientific interests, political interests, or anything adventurous, we ascribe that to men. The stereotype of women is far more limited than the stereotype of a man (at least what we adults of a certain age have been raised to believe, based on movies, media, cultural conditioning, etc.)

We all are taught this, but I think women might be better at realizing that women are more multi-dimensional than we are stereotyped to be.

That's why so many men assume that faceless people on the internet are all men, until they learn otherwise. It's like they had no idea that women are interested in more than makeup, tampons, baking cakes, and raising babies. (Is that sexist of me?)

[hunter]

63. Hmmm. Is this innappropriate?

met her in a club down in old Soho
Where you drink champagne and it tastes like cherry cola c.o.l.a. cola

She walked up to me and she asked me to dance
I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice
she said Lola L.o.l.a. Lola
La La La La Lola

[seabeyond]

66. now, this is funny. i was playing and sing to the song while cleaning the kitchen

16 yr old son came in and told me he was going to make me a playlist. he knows what i like better than i. i never remember bands and songs i like. i have taken time to make playlists. takes days listening to each song to try and figure it out.

the other day he was clicking on song after song he told me i would like. he was right. was fun and exciting.

i would tell him to click on a song and he would tell me i didnt like it. i would make him, and i didnt like it. lol

so, because of you, he is going to make ME a playlist. i really appreciate it.

[Rex]

71. So this thread is an 'experiment' and not a 'discussion'.

Thank you for participating. Feel free to repost in the Science forum.

[The Doctor.]

83. No, it's not an 'experiment'.

It's an honest question to get information. That might be referred to as a 'study', not an 'experiment'.

Since irrelevant information has been added to the question, the 'study' is effectively contaminated because too many can no longer be objective toward the question in the OP.

Thank you for providing the case in point for that.

[left coaster]

72. I think it depends on whether or not the gender assumption has a negative connotation attached to it

Ascribing a love of nature to a particular gender (in this case female), even if it turns out that the nature lover is a male, isn't really an insult to either gender, really.

Ascribing logical thought process to a specific gender, yeah, that's insulting, and inaccurate. That's sexist, to me.

[The Doctor.]

80. Yeah. That's fair.

But I would say that being surprised that someone of a particular gender possesses a certain quality they associate with another gender is essentially 'sexist', whether as a compliment or not.

I've been on the receiving end of all of it. I usually do take being considered 'female' for certain positive traits a compliment. The negative accusations of femininity I just see as ignorant sexism by the accuser.

[tawadi]

74. Not sexist, just unthinking

And a little ridiculous. One of the best nature photographers of all time was a man.

[aaaaaa5a]

79. Can I flag this entire thread...

and have a jury of my community kill this off this ridiculous, troll-fueding, flame-bait?


Just asking.

[The Doctor.]

84. So a poster comes in, insists it was about her, and that makes it 'flame bait'?

If that is the case, then the other thread where the quote was from a man would also be 'flame bait'.

Can you explain how the OP is 'flame bait'?

Meanwhile, regardless of what happens in this thread, I intend to repost the same question in time in order to get honest answers instead of all of this ridiculous outrage-mongering.

[aaaaaa5a]

117. Um... you started an ENTIRE NEW THREAD

just to "call out" another poster who you were feuding with. Yup looks like flame-bait to me!


Am I curious as the the motives of this thread? Yes.

[The Doctor.]

142. So you're telepathetic? I'm impressed you know why everyone does everything.

You'd be invaluable to law enforcement. You should really put your mental powers to good use there.

Ok, really I'm just calling you on the bullshit.

So someone tells you that it's a 'call out', despite the fact that I posted no links, no names, not even another site, and you believe it.


Do you call cats 'dogs' just because someone pointed to a cat, told you it had a tail, and that's why 'it's a dog'?



Mensa this place ain't.

[Life Long Dem]

81. Nature scenes are not manly?

What is she trying to say? I like to have nature scenes on my desktop. So does this mean I'm not a man? Screw her and the broom she rode in on, I like nature scenes.

[Shankapotomus]

86. I was asked to comment but

I'm going to refrain as this seems to be turning into a personal issue between two parties.

I think everyone should step back and revisit the issue another time in a less confrontational manner.

[seabeyond]

88. then i would suggest the Op not use me as an example. ask the question in a different manner

or the same thing will end up happening. me feeling he is manipulating an answer to point a finger at me.

[The Doctor.]

98. That's impossible. You have decided that anything like this I post is about you.

You even believed that the question on whether the man was sexist was about you.

There's simply no way to post this without you accusing me of talking about you.


I have a possible solution though. You could rephrase the question that would show similar surprise from a woman at a man having so-called 'feminine' traits (fashion sense, cooking, artistry, name your stereotype) and asking it yourself.

You could create an OP yourself, and get the answers. Other than that, I'm going to have to wait several months to post it by proxy. Believe me, I won't make the mistake of using something similar to your own post again. You've certainly trashed this attempt because of it. Problem is: that means I'm going to have to go through and make sure that I'm not using any example that someone else can claim to be 'about them'.

Is it too much to ask for your cooperation in this endeavor? You seem to be a bit too agitated to even entertain the notion.

[seabeyond]

99. i didnt read your post... just for a heads up. it is not impossible. you can come up

with many different scenarios.

[The Doctor.]

109. Responding to posts you haven't read

is kind of an exercise in ignorance.

Textbook, really:

ig·no·rance
? ?[ig-ner-uhns]
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.


Tell me how I might put the same question out there, a counterpart to the other one, in a way that you will not take personally.

[seabeyond]

111. same as above, for heads up. i am answering the title. anything you post will get a reaction

from me.

i am telling you that is not true

i respectfully stayed out of your other post because it was not linked to me. so, my thought was, have at it.

same with a countering observation.

create something that is not linked to me, and have at it.

otherwise, i will speak up

[The Doctor.]

143. I'm not impressed with ignorance.

We're even.

Maybe when people stop lying and making shit up, stop assigning motives to me that I don't have, and stop trying to make threads about me or themselves, then I'll have no cause to look "arrogant".

[The Doctor.]

89. I blame myself... mostly.

I plan to ask again, and I hope that she'll refrain from assuming it is about her.

My problem here is that I couldn't think of a better way to pose the question without her deciding it was about her. That's my failing. Considering that she also believed the other thread was about her as well, I really can't think of too many ways I could have changed it. I already know that giving her a head's up and telling her that it wasn't about her would do no good as she's determined to make it about her.

I know how that sounds, but still It's my fault I couldn't think of a way to avoid the contamination. I suppose I'll have to use a proxy, but I suspect she'll be on guard for that and again insist, no matter how it is posed, that it is about her.

As for yourself, do you really believe that you cannot disregard the contamination and objectively answer the question in the OP? It's okay, I know when a study is contaminated that 'objectivity' becomes virtually impossible. You could certainly include qualifiers, because I am honestly interested in the feed back.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

87. Gender bias yes- sexist might be pushing it

When you walk into a home and look at how it is decorated you can make a reasonable assumption as to the sex of the decorator based off of prior experience. The post may have more to do with the "eye" of the photographer and comparing it to prior experience. Definitely a "prejudice" here though not a harmful one- I don't feel that the post was linking "wonderful" or "nature" to being a female thing since it was directly referencing photos that are viewable- I believe the poster could have been saying that their photos were great but that the images contained a meme that they felt (through gender bias or past experience) reflected the eye of a female.

[The Doctor.]

90. That's perfectly reasonable.

As I usually give the BotD, I'd say that's a fair assessment of the quote.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

91. As an addendum -

I have oft read things I thought were by one sex and turned out to be another- cant even really say why I felt the way I did- sometimes when reading we ascribe a voice to the text (which may be based on syntax and flow or truly nothing at all) which may not be accurate.
For example: the first time I heard Diane Rheme (sp?) years ago I thought she was African American- not even for any real reason, just did. There was also a book I read where a male character kept reading in my head as female, even with the "he said"- once again don't know why.

[Life Long Dem]

96. Thats possible.

If you have, lets say, a field of daises that the poster post all the time, opposed to posting nature scenes like the Rocky Mountains then I can see her point.

[Spazito]

93. Seeing as you have stated you have been conducting a "social "experiment""...

as can be seen in post #65, I am curious about a few things:

Did you send out 'invitations' to every participant in your previous thread or were you selective based on the responses? (I received one of the 'invitations' to participate)

In deciding to conduct your experiment, did you have a presumptive conclusion prior to executing your 'experiment'? If so, what would that have been? If not, what is it you wished to prove or disprove?

[seabeyond]

94. invitation? really?

more and more interesting. i heard a couple reference invitation.

i didnt get an invitation.

[Spazito]

95. Ahhh, so it seems one of my questions may be answered...

the 'invitations' were selective as opposed to all who participated in the previous thread. Good to know! It certainly makes me even more curious as to what criteria was used to select those who did or did not receive an invitation to participate.

[seabeyond]

97. good point. i dont know. i purposely did not respond in the other thread.

i felt it may have something to do with me, but was not linked to me. i left it alone. respectfully. it was only when this OP that i feel is directed at me, had me feeling the need to speak out.

[Spazito]

102. If you didn't respond in the other thread then I can see why you would not have...

received an 'invitation' if they were limited to those who participated in the other thread. It seems the 'experiment' had Part A (the first thread) and Part B (this thread). For consistency in the 'experiment' I can see where invitations might go out only to those who participated in Part A in an attempt to have somewhat of a 'control group' from which one might draw certain conclusions.

Knowing you didn't participate in the first thread, I am back to wanting to know if all participants in that thread received invitations or were they selective.

[seabeyond]

104. exactly. i see your point. nt

[The Doctor.]

106. I sent an invitation to each person who responded directly to the OP.

Regardless of their response in that thread.

The only exception was the one that was acting by proxy for another poster in this thread.

This was more of a 'study' than an 'experiment' as I had no need to mislead or deceive anyone to obtain results.

There was a presumption that there would be a different response to the possibility of a woman with sexist tendencies than to a man. I sought to see what the degree of difference might be and how the various participants would approach the question with the inverted criteria.

I did not presuppose what the results would be, only that there would likely be a difference.

Unfortunately (or perhaps revealingly), I could not come up with a second question that another poster would decide to take personally. I made the mistake of using a suitable quote from another discussion with a different context. As I have discovered, even the other thread was 'suspected' by that poster.

I was looking at the possibility of personal attacks, but I have no doubt that when the other poster interjected context that was not relevant to the question, such attacks were exacerbated.

Nonetheless, after applying methodical disregard for the contamination, I can see that there is a certain tendency. Unfortunately, the results are too corrupt to be reliable. Hell, it wasn't formal or meticulous to begin with.


Does that answer your questions? Feel free to clarify or ask others as necessary.

[seabeyond]

107. are you suggesting i sent someone in to your other thread? lol. oh, you.

but thank you for that info on the invites.

[Spazito]

113. Thanks for your answers...

In doing a comparison between the two threads, it seems very few posters can be found in both threads which would, to me anyway, render the experiment less than useful in it's execution. Very few of your invitations to participate in this thread seem to have been accepted, as of yet anyway.

If I am understanding this response correctly:

"I did not presuppose what the results would be, only that there would likely be a difference."

the "likely difference" you were expecting to see in the outcome was less posters who saw "sexist" in your first thread would see "sexist" in your second, is my understanding correct? If so, given the 'control group' you wanted to use has not chosen to participate in 'Part B' of the experiment, would it not be correct to say there is not a measurable "difference" to be found?

What exactly do you mean by this statement:

"The only exception was the one that was acting by proxy for another poster in this thread."

I could not find any post on the 'Part A' thread stating a poster was participating as a "proxy" for anyone. Was this an assumption on your part re a poster being a "proxy" for someone else?

[The Doctor.]

138. First, and this is an important distinction:

This is not so much an 'experiment'. It is much more accurately classified as a study.

I used examples that have indeed occurred in reality and have no need to keep aspects of the study 'secret'. You'll find that social experiments almost always require some form of deception whereas studies tend to be more straightforward. There was no need to deceive anyone in order to find out how they felt about the two scenarios.

But it was a little more than just finding out opinions and gender perception. There were the meta-results as well. Those are certainly worth looking at.

This was by no means any kind of 'formal' study. I felt no need to have any control group, I just wanted to see if those that gave a particular opinion of the one would say something similar or different about the other. Given that both of the examples contain the same crucial elements, the responses should be no different from one to the other.

The first thread shows how quick most people are to condemn a man for 'sexism' without asking for context or giving the benefit of the doubt.

This thread, after excising as much of the contamination as possible, we see that the most earnest responses absent of that contamination (where can be best determined) show a much greater tendency not to judge.

I really have to do it again though because no results from a contaminated study can be conclusive.

As for the single person I did not invite, I'm not sure why you're so curious about it. Regardless, the response of that individual to the question was too likely pre-informed. Although I can't be certain, there are three reasons I didn't bother: The complete lack of coherent reason given by the poster and the deliberate inclusion of further criteria, not the request for context, in order to make a determination, The very high likelyhood of having been given context before participation, and my actual certainty that their answer would not change.

Again, not a formal study.

[tpsbmam]

118. You sent out invitations to people who responded on another thread....

and you say this is a study? WTF!

Sorry, this vendetta is obvious and tired. I've read through the thread and the link to the previous discussion on DU2 makes this plain and clear.

I've seen this pattern with you on the boards. You tend to evade and avoid and take on a terribly condescending tone with posters.

Well, from another "doctor" (you are not THE doctor on the boards), if you truly were trying to "study" this phenomenon you would not bring up this old discussion from DU2, one with which you apparently have continually dogged seabeyond. If you chose to use that example, you would NOT do it on DU. You'd take it to another forum or other forums that have nothing to do with DU, if you truly want an informal set of feedback answers. Bringing it back over and over on DU under the guise of "study" is total bullshit -- it's clearly agenda driven.

Finally, if you really want to "study" it, take your values out of the question. Instead of suggesting people should see it as sexist, form a question that simply asks what people think when the situation you described occurs. Your version, though not quite a push poll, is barely better than a push poll.

As a doctor qualified to look into your cognitive & psychological status, this obsession with this one small interaction with seabeyond isn't healthy -- time to move on!

Oh, and the next time you choose to bring this vendetta here......I, too, have screenshots.

[seabeyond]

121. wow.

you intimidate me. lol

thanks.

[The Doctor.]

139. Let's have some examples of this 'evading' and 'avoiding'.

Also, you have been influenced to believe I did something that I did not.

This, for instance: "if you truly were trying to "study" this phenomenon you would not bring up this old discussion from DU2"

I know this will be lost on you, but can you show me where I informed anyone of the other and still not relevant discussion on DU2?

You can't. Because I didn't.

You've also revealed that you are incapable of compartmentalizing aspects of a given discussion. You have decided that the OP is about a 'vendetta', which is only what you have been told and now believe, and are now rendered incapable of forming an objective opinion about it absent that information.

Being so easily influenced by someone to perceive something the way they want you to, without knowing anything about the depth or character of those prior exchanges besides what they tell you and having less than a handful of actual quotes to go by while concluding that there must be a 'vendetta' only proves that you are in no way 'qualified' to psychoanalyze anyone. If you don't even recognize how you are being influenced and what is going on in your own mind, you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of figuring out what is going on in anyone else's... and definitely not mine.

If it were a 'vendetta', then you could show us some context that proves it beyond your personal opinion as arrived at through the entreaty of another.

If you were actually a psychologist with any behavioral experience, you also would not have said several of the things you did. Not the least of which would be putting someone on their 'guard' by telling them you can analyze them.

You plainly have no intention of 'analyzing' me as you are either more interested in trying to impress me ( ), or not remotely qualified to practice regardless of any worthless pieces of paper you may hold. As I've said many times and will say again: When people make it about me instead of about the subject or issue, I need no more proof that they are impotent to deal with the subject. I'd invite you to do so, but those with your sort of ego will seldom set aside their personal opinions of me in order to deal in earnest with the subject at hand. More proof you are not what you claim to be.

So please, by all means, keep every screen shot you wish in a futile effort to intimidate me, shame me, or otherwise paint me as somehow 'petty'. You will not only find the exercise disappointing, but over time you will find that I'm nothing like how you would wish to characterize me. One thing you'll find is that I tend to give the BotD to everyone until they say something rude, insulting, or condescending themselves as you have here. So take all the screenshots you wish. I already know for a fact that seabeyond gave a dishonest representation of our exchange on the other thread... then she moved the goalpost. All you'll find is that I stand by my integrity and I do not lie about others even when they lie about me... as you have been misled as well by someone. So take screenshots.

Who knows, maybe you'll actually learn a thing or two.

[The Doctor.]

151. I'm still waiting for those examples.

Or some proof that you're what you claim to be.

I'm guessing neither are forthcoming, and I'm certain of the reasons.

[obamanut2012]

110. An invitation???

Wow.

Interesting.

[Dorian Gray]

136. Yep

I got the same thing.

It's weird.

And it's making me think that there is an agenda behind this that I want no part of.

[The Doctor.]

144. No agenda beyond curiosity.

Would you have answered the question in this OP differently than you did the last one?

Or has the interference of the poster who insists this is about her influenced you past any such objectivity?

[Dorian Gray]

152. When I read the second OP

without any of the other posts in the thread, I thought you were playing games.

[The Doctor.]

153. Yet the first one seemed perfectly legitimate to you?

No games, that's just you.

I've had similar interactions with both declared men and women. The question is an honest one. What is so very interesting is how people are so incredulous (as you are) over the notion of a woman engaging in sexism while so very willing to accept that a man does. Even the posts from earnest contributors tend to bend over backwards to give the female subject the BotD.

You thought wrong, but I really can't bring myself to care that you're going to believe whatever you want to.

[LadyHawkAZ]

100. He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.

~Nietzsche (a sexist himself)

You don't wage a successful war on sexism by becoming what you're fighting against. Right now women's sexism doesn't pack nearly the social punch that men's sexism does because the power dynamic is not equal, but eventually that will change. I'd prefer the change to be a renaissance, not just a reversal, and that the entire idea of gender stereotypes become a sad footnote in history books.

The um-ers and searches for a different word are disappointing. Per Merriam Webster:
1
: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

It doesn't meet the first description, but does meet the second. If we're going to get collectively disgusted (and we SHOULD get collectively disgusted) about a man assuming a woman couldn't be logical or intelligent, we shouldn't be trying to minimize a woman thinking a man couldn't be emotional or connected with nature.

I'm going to ignore the whole subthread as irrelevant to the issue- I read through the other thread, and only one person asked for context- no one assumed there might have been a misunderstanding, or that the man might have thought they saw a post on the person's gender elsewhere, or any other caveat. Everyone quite rightly called it out as sexist. It is a pretty good demonstration of how deep these attitudes and stereotypes run in society and how difficult it can be to see it in yourself.

Just my two cents, everyone else's mileage may vary.

I await with amused interest an increase in the number of people blocking me.

[seabeyond]

103. increase in the number of people blocking me.

ah haha ha ha.

no way. isnt going to happen

[LadyHawkAZ]

105. Lol! Someone did.

My profile shows a block by one person. I have no clue who I pissed off that badly, or when- it was there as soon as I made the move to DU3 and noticed that tab.

[seabeyond]

108. ahhhm. you are so bad.

i dont think i can chat with you anymore, lol.

[LadyHawkAZ]

119. Didn't you get that memo?

I am a rude angry feminazi, a bleeding heart soshulist librul and a baby-sammitch-eating atheist. I am totally unfit for human company.

[seabeyond]

120. rude angry feminazi, a bleeding heart soshulist librul

i only get these two.

i dont talk about my spiritual beliefs or thoughts. lol. would be rude. havent you heard, lol.

[LadyHawkAZ]

122. See, this is why we must get rid of the USPS

and let the Free Market handle things. All these memos keep getting lost in the mail.

[seabeyond]

124. lol. nt

[The Doctor.]

112. Agreed. We can't fight mysogyny with misandry.

Yet we see it all the time.

Granted, the current construct is generally biased against women. I believe that has more to do with evolutionary artifacts we haven't engaged in enough reason and education to shed just yet.

It's difficult to undo millions of years of evolution with only a few thousand of 'civilization'. I have to say though... we're headed in the right direction if we can just stop certain forces from pulling us back to the dark ages.

[seabeyond]

115. especially seeing how evolutionary psychology is bunk. nt

[The Doctor.]

145. No, it's a field of study.

One that Rightwing nutjobs and Creationists refer to as 'bunk'. Since you're not a wingnut or fundie, I'll assume you were being sarcastic and actually attesting to the validity of evolutionary psychology.

I'm not into that field, but kudos for standing up for it.

[seabeyond]

147. evolutionary biologists dont get near evolutionary psychology with a ten foot pole.

they call it bunk.

you are getting the science and the cult confused.

[The Doctor.]

148. That's because they are not psychologists.

Nor are they any more qualified to comment on psychology than a cardiologist is qualified to comment on climatology.

Personally, I don't know much about EP, but I've found certain aspects worth investigating.

[seabeyond]

149. that is because they know it is garbage. but really, lets address the dishonesty

when someone says evolutionary psychology is bunk. and you bringing up anti science right winger disbelief of SCIENTIFIC EVOLTUTIONARY BIOLOGY to diss the poster, insult the poster talking about the difference between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.

[The Doctor.]

150. What the heck are you talking about?

Here's the post in its entirety again:

"Nor are they any more qualified to comment on psychology than a cardiologist is qualified to comment on climatology.

Personally, I don't know much about EP, but I've found certain aspects worth investigating."

Please explain what part of that 'insults the poster'?

I'm no longer following this descent.

Good Bye.

[LadyHawkAZ]

116. I don't think it's an evolutionary artifact

I think it's a cultural one, carried over from previous ultra-religious cultures- prejudices are appealing to a group against a perceived "other" and promote solidarity and control within the group, and so are difficult to root out. I totally agree with the reason and education part though. That's what we need more of.

[The Doctor.]

146. I understand your perspective, but actually, it really is evolutionary.

The perceived 'other' is part of the function of the anterior cingulate cortex... or lack thereof. Throughout evolutionary history, those with low function in that region were almost universally paranoid. 100,000 Years ago, that was a good thing. These days it is not.

When every 'other' was potentially dangerous, those that took a cautious or even aggressive approach to the unfamiliar had higher survival rates and therefore went on to reproduce.

That's why we have wingnuts to this very day. It's no accident that they tend to be anti-women, anti-gay, anti-anything-that-isn't-just-like-them.

As for the other evolutionary artifacts, there are many and they are VERY real.

Edited to add: You're not wrong. Much of what society 'teaches' is polluted with stereotyping and cosmetic quantification. Though I would argue that this is the result of millions of years of evolution.

[joshcryer]

101. No, you haven't provided enough information to make that determination.

Was the other posters nickname gender-neutral?

Did the other poster indicate their gender in their profile?

Was the poster in question misinformed about the gender identity of the photo poster in the past?

There are posters here who I still can't remember if they are male or female, and I know at least in once case I thought someone was a female for many months, because they had posted a picture of who I assumed was themselves. I felt so stupid when I was called out on that one, and I couldn't really explain how I actually thought it, couldn't find the past post that had indicated that to me.

So that's why I use singular they and just don't even concern myself with gender. Anonymous posters on the internet, can be quite daunting with these sorts of things.

[McCamy Taylor]

123. Yes. It is sexist.

[peasant one]

128. No

We can not know what the poster based that gender assumption on. There may have been other exchanges that related to the poster's impressions of your gender that may have had nothing to do with the nature pictures. The coupling of these two comments may have been merely a coincidence. But I think it is always wise to give someone a break especially in these kinds of discussions.

[SwampG8r]

129. yes

it is sexist for the exact same reason the other statement was

[Lil Missy]

130. No. It seems more like making a mountain out of a molehill. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

131. IMO, this was sexist, and a generalization based upon gender.

Quite possibly a case of mild sexism and based on a narrow life experience and a lot of other environmental factors, sexist could be a bit strong a term to use with a stranger for a case like this.

But you're right, it is sexist. But not nearly as offensive as Bill's comments, IMO.

[MilesColtrane]

132. Seems sexist to me, but only mildly.

It wouldn't wind me up if someone said that to me, but I don't walk around with a chip on my shoulder about assumptions like that.

[Zorra]

133. Yes, as sexist is defined in adjective form.

No, as a remark that would define someone as a sexist (noun).

If a man thought I was a man because I posted detailed mechanics of a safety blitz, the remark would be sexist (adjective). But I would not consider him a sexist (noun). Most women are simply not socialized into the culture of football and would not know what a safety blitz is, and that's a fact, and it would be reasonable for most men to expect that a woman would not know what a safety blitz is.

If a man thought I was a man because I posted about the probability amplitude of position, I would consider him a sexist. (Houston, we have a problem . Intelligence is not primarily relative to socialization. So if a man believed that I was male simply because I was intelligent or could think logically, he would, IMO, probably be a sexist because he is indicating that he does not believe females have the capacity for intelligence, or the ability to think logically.

[vaberella]

135. Women can and have been propergators of sexism. Maybe not so much as men; but there are moments.

Sadly...although I am a big supporter of both male and female rights...when I was younger I always though that nursing and cooking were women's jobs. Until I found out that was the reverse for cooking and as for nursing that was a woman's world. Of course I had to learn that I was wrong in my approach. But then I was a teen during that time...since then women have been moving up in the Construction world and more and more men are great RNs.

It's very sad when other women, adult women for that matter, don't realize they are wrong or admit they were wrong when they propagate the same sexist or double standard that they like to accuse men of doing to them. I also know one to many women to actually claim that it's the male dominated society that does this...thus marginalizing the role of women's social changes in our society for the last century.

In effect...hell yeah it's sexist.

[JNelson6563]

137. This seems a bit different from the intelligence topic.

While it is rather sexist to believe girls are more inclined to art than boys, it is less so than the intelligence matter we discussed yesterday. This is more along the lines of who uses what part of the brain and we all know that society teaches certain things about gender.

Of course the theory that girls are creative and boys are not is completely wrong and is held by those who are not particularly enlightened. Creativity exists within all of us in varying degrees, whether or not it is developed generally has little to do with our genders.

Julie